Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

c:w:.~.;:'Fl'.SD TRUI;.

__COPY

w
...... §. -
~»'/,'::~, . v~·? v:-L~
w~
l\epublit of tbe ~bilippines ·~1:1~~·j.:~: ~-:·:i~J:~ourt
1
v

~upreme QI:ourt MAY 2 6 2011


r@aguio Qeitp

THIRD DIVISION

SCANMAR MARITIME G.R. No. 212382


SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT Present:
INC., LOUIS DREYFUS
ARMATEURS AND MIT ILE DE VELASCO, JR., J.,
BREHAT AND/OR MR. Chairperson,
EDGARDO CANOZA, DEL CASTILLO,*
Petitioners, PEREZ,
REYES, and
JARDELEZA, JJ

- versus -

Promulgated:

20~-~
Respon~~:~----------~~::::::_.:;z:.:_:_:::
April:•
EMILIO CONAG, ______ x
x--------------------------------------

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 from the Decision2


dated January 27, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
119282, which reversed the Decision3 dated November 30, 2010 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No.
OFW(M) 09-000666-10 and ordered the reinstatement of the Decision4 of
the Labor Arbiter (LA) dated July 8, 2010 in NLRC RAB NCR Case No.
(M) 02-02666-10.

Designated Additional Member per Raffie dated January 21, 2015 vice Associate Justice Diosdado
M. Peralta.
1
Rollo, pp. 26-75.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta
and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; id. at 77-86.
3
Rendered by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with Commissioners Perlita B.
Velasco and Romeo L. Go concurring; id. at 194-203.
4
Rendered by Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban; id. at 183-192.

d
Decision 2 G.R. No. 212382

Since 2002, respondent Emilio A. Conag (Conag) had been


deployed annually by petitioner Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc.
(Scanmar) as a bosun's mate aboard foreign vessels owned or operated
by its principal, Crown Ship Management, Inc./Louis Dreyfus
Armateurs SAS (Crown Ship). On March 27, 2009, he was again
deployed as a bosun's mate aboard the vessel MIT Ile de Brehdt. According
to him, his job entailed lifting heavy loads and occasionally, he would skid
and fall while at work on deck. On June 19, 2009, as he was going about his
deck duties, he felt numbness in his hip and back. He was given pain
relievers but the relief was temporary. Two months later, the pain recurred
with more intensity, and on August 18, 2009 he was brought to a hospital in
Tunisia. 5

On August 25, 2009, Conag was medically repatriated. Upon mrival


in Manila on August 27, 2009, he was referred to the company-designated
physicians at the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC), Marine Medical
Services, where he was examined and subjected to laboratory
examinations. 6

The laboratory tests showed that Conag had "Mild Lumbar


Levoconvex Scoliosis and Spondylosis; Right SJ Nerve Root
Compression," with an incidental finding of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v.
Cholesterolosis." 7 For over a period of 95 days, he was treated by the
company-designated physicians, Drs. Robert Lim (Dr. Lim) and Esther
G. Go (Dr. Go), and in their final medical report8 dated December 1,
2009, they declared Conag fit to resume sea duties. Later that. day,
Conag signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, 9 written in English and
Filipino. Conag claimed that he was required to sign the certificate as a
condition sine qua non for the release of his accumulated sick pay. 10
According to him, however, his condition deteriorated while he was
undergoing treatment. On February 18, 2010, he filed a complaint against
Scarunar, Crown Ship and Edgardo Canoza (collectively, petitioners)
seeking full and permanent disability benefits, among others. He also
consulted another doctor, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr. (Dr. Jacinto), at Sta.
Teresita General Hospital in Quezon City, who on March 20, 2010 issued a
certificate stating that his "condition did not improve despite medicine and
that his symptoms aggravated due to his work which entails carrying of
heavy loads." 11 Dr. Jacinto then assessed Conag as unfit to go back to work

Id. at 78.
6
Id.
7
Id.
Id. at 147.
9
Id. at 149.
10

ll
Id. at 163.
II
Id. at 185.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 212382

as a seafarer. 12

Ruling of the LA

In its Decision 13 dated July 8, 2010, the LA held that the


disability assessment of Dr. Jacinto was reflective of Conag's actual
medical and physical condition. 14 Citing Maun/ad Transport Inc.,
and/or Nippon Merchant Marine Company, Ltd., Inc. v. Manigo, Jr., 15
the LA ruled that the medical reports presented by the parties are not
binding upon the arbitration tribunal, but must be evaluated on their
inherent merit, and that the declaration of fitness by the company-designated
physicians may be overcome by superior evidence. 16 In particular, the
LA noted that during the arbitration proceedings, Conag , appeared to
be clearly physically unfit to resume sea duties on account of his
spinal injuries. 17 As for the certificate of fitness to work Conag signed, the
LA ruled it out for being an invalid waiver. 18 The fa/lo of the LA decision
1

reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby


rendered ordering [Scanmar] and/or [Crown Ship] to pay [Conag] the
Philippine peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED US
DOLLARS (US$118,800), representing permanent disability benefits in
accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, plus ten [percent]
(10%) thereof as and for attorney's fees.

All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 19

Ruling of the NLRC

On appeal by the petitioners, the NLRC in its Decision20 dated


November 30, 2010, dismissed Conag's complaint for lack of merit. It
took note that Conag failed to comply with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC)
requirement on the appointment of a neutral physician in case of
disagreement as to his disability assessment. 21 The NLRC nevertheless
ruled that even without the opinion of a third doctor jointly chosen
12
Id.
13
Id. at 183-192.
14
Id. at 188.
15
577 Phil. 3 19 (2008),
16
Rollo, pp. 188-189.
17
Id. at 188.
18
Id. at 190.
19
Id. at 191-192.

l
20
Id. at 194-203.
21
Id. at 198-199.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 212382

by the parties, any ruling will have to be based on the evidence on


record, 22 pursuant to Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al. 23 It
concluded that Conag's evidence was inadequate to overcome the
assessment of fitness by the company-designated physicians. The
NLRC pointed out that Conag was under the care of the company-designated
physicians from the time of his repatriation on August 27, 2009 until
he was declared fit to work on December 1, 2009. The company-designated
physicians were able to show the detailed procedures and laboratory
tests done on Conag. On the other hand, Dr. Jacinto's medical
certificate did not specify the dates when he saw and treated Conag, nor the
diagnostic and laboratory tests he conducted and the specific treatments and
medications he administered, if any, in arriying at his conclusion that the
latter suffered from "Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-Sl, Right," and was
now unfit to work. 24

The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC


in its Resolution 25 dated February 28, 2011.

Ruling of the CA

In upholding the LA decision, the CA found "undisputed" evidence


that Conag suffered from spinal injuries which caused his total disability,
discrediting as without basis the NLRC's dismissal of Dr. Jacinta's
assessment. That he was not rehired by the petitioners is a telling proof, the
CA said, of his unfitness for sea duties, after having assessed him as fit to go
back to work. 26

On motion for reconsideration, 27 the petitioners tried to show, to


no avail, that the award of disability benefits to Conag is without
basis because there is no proof that his claimed spinal injury was
work-related, since he could point to no incident on board which
could have caused it. They claimed that he was declared fit to work
by the company-designated physicians pursuant to the provisions of
the POEA-SEC, to which he was bound. They further averred that,
granting he was permanently disabled, as a bosun's mate, Conag was
classified as "rating" only and not a junior officer; and he is thus entitled
only to $89,100.00 in disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA). They also claimed that the CA's reliance on the 120-day
rule in the treatment of seafarers is misplaced and attorney's fees cannot be
awarded because they are fully justified in denying disability benefits to

22
Id. at 199.
23
611 Phil. 291 (2009).
24
Rollo, pp. 199-202.
25
Id. at 205-206.
26
Id. at 85.
27
Id. at 87-124.

A
Decision 5 G.R. No. 212382

Conag.

Grounds

In this petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners basically


reiterate the same grounds they had raised before the CA, to wit:

I. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error


of law in disregarding the medical findings of the
company-designated physician[ s] and awarding full
disability compensation under the CBA.

2. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error of


law in invoking the 120-day [rule]. The [CA's] reliance
on the 120-day [rule] is misplaced. Mere inability to
work for more than 120 days does not of itself [entitle]
[Conag] to full disability compensation.

3. Whether the [CA] erred in awarding attorney's fees in


favor of [Conag] despite justified refusal to pay full and
permanent benefits. 28

Essentially, the petitioners seek to belie the conclusion of the


CA that the NLRC's determination of Conag's permanent total
disability is not borne out by the evidence. In effect, the Court was asked to
make an inquiry into the contrary factual findings of the NLRC and the LA,
whose statutory function is to make factual findings based on the evidence
on record. 29 Crucial, then, to a ruling on the above issue is whether the CA
was justified in finding that, contrary to the NLRC's conclusion, Conag
suffered a work-related spinal injury which rendered him unfit to return to
work.

Ruling of the Court

The Court grants the petition.

In appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,


the task of the Court is generally to review only errors of law since
it is not a trier of facts, a rule which definitely applies to labor cases. 30 But
while the NLRC and the LA are imbued with expertise and authority to

28
Id. at 32-33.
29
See CBL Transit, Inc. v. NLRC, 469 Phil. 363, 371 (2004).
30
Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., GR. No. 209302, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA
677, 687.

i'l
Decision 6 G.R. No. 212382

resolve factual issues, the Court has in exceptional cases delved into them
where there is insufficient evidence to support their findings, or too much is
deduced from the bare facts submitted by the parties, or the LA and the
31
NLRC came up with conflicting findings, as the Court has found in this
case.

Seafarer's right to disability benefits

The relevant legal provisions governing a seafarer's right to


disability benefits, in addition to the parties' contract and medical
findings, 32 are Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code and Section 2,
Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. The pertinent
contracts are the POEA-SEC, the CBA, if any, and the employment
agreement between the seafarer and his employer. 33 To summarize and
harmonize the pertinent provisions on the establishment of a seafarer's claim
to disability benefits, the Court held in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime
Services, Inc., et al. 34 that:

[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the
company-designated physician within three (3) days from an-ival for
diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no
case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he
is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period
until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged
by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his
condition is defined under the POEA [-SEC] and by applicable Philippine
laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is
made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the
temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of
240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period
that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may
of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is
justified by his medical condition. 35 (Citations omitted and italics in the
original)

In C.F Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Taok, 36 the Court


enumerated the conditions which may be the basis for a seafarer's action for
total and permanent disability benefits, as follows:

(a) [T]he company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration


as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the
lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further
medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence,

31
Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al., supra note 23, at 3 11.
32
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, inc., et al. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 533 (2012).
33
Id.; Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., supra note 30, at 688.
34
588 Phil. 895 (2008).
35
Id. at 912.
36
691 Phil. 521 (2012).
1[
Decision 7 G.R. No. 212382

justify an extension of the period to. 240 days; (b) 240 days had
lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated
physician; (c) the company-designated physician declared that he is
fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case
may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under
Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d)
the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his
own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not
only permanent but total as well; (e) the company-designated
physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but
there is a dispute on the disability grading; (f) the company-designated
physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable
or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and
the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found
otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) the company-designated
physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the
employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) the
company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently
disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains
incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said
37
periods.

Incidentally, in the recent case of Magsaysay Maritime


Corporation v. Simbajon, 38 the Court has mentioned that an
amendment to Section 20-A(6) of the POEA-SEC, contained in POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, 39 now "finally clarifies" that
"[f]or work-related illnesses acquired by seafarers from the time the 2010
amendment to the POEA-SEC took effect, the declaration of disability
should no longer be based on the number of days the seafarer was treated or
paid his sickness allowance, but rather on the disability grading he received,
whether from the company-designated physician or from the third
independent physician, if the medical findings of the. physician chosen by
the seafarer conflicts with that of the company-designated doctor. " 40

Conag failed to comply with Section


20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC

37
Id. at 538-539.
38
G.R. No. 203472, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 631.
39
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, October 26,
2010.
Section 20-A(6) provides:
In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated
in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall
be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease
was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32
of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is
under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid.

A
40
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbqjon, supra note 38, at 652-653.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 212382

On December 1, 2009, after 95 days of therapy, Conag was


pronounced by the company-designated doctors as fit to work. Later that
day, he executed a certificate, in both English and Filipino, acknowledging
that he was now fit to work. On December 5, 2009, he left for his home
province of Negros Oriental, as he told his employers in his letter41 dated
February 9, 2010, wherein he expressed his desire to be redeployed. He told
them that during his vacation he was able to engage in a lot of activities such
as walking around his neighborhood four times a week, swimming two times
a week, weightlifting three times a week, driving his car on Saturdays for
one hour, riding his motorbike five times a week, playing basketball every
Sunday, and fishing and doing some house repairs when he had the time.

Interestingly, however, on February 18, 2010, 42 a mere nine days after


his letter, Conag filed his complaint with the LA for disability benefits,
presumably after he was told that he would not be rehired, although the
reasons for his rejection are nowhere stated. It is not alleged that before he
filed his complaint, he first sought payment of total disability benefits from
the petitioners. In fact, it was only on March 20, 2010, three months after
the petitioners declared him fit to work, that Conag obtained an assessment
of unfitness to work from a doctor of his choice, Dr. Jacinto. Thus, when he
filed his complaint for disability benefits, he clearly had as yet no medical
evidence whatsoever to support his claim of pennanent and total disability.

But even granting that his afterthought consultation with Dr.


Jacinto could be given due consideration, it has been held in Philippine
43
Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, and reiterated in Simbajon, 44
that under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC, the duty to secure the
opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability
benefits. Not only did Conag fail to seasonably obtain an opinion from his
own doctor before filing his complaint, thereby permitting the petitioners no
opportunity to evaluate his doctor's assessment, but he also made it
impossible for the parties to jointly seek the opinion of a third doctor
precisely because the petitioners had not known about Dr. Jacinto's opinion
in the first place. Indeed, three months passed before Conag sought to
dispute the company-designated physicians' assessment, and during this
interval other things could have happened to cause or aggravate his injury.
In particular, the Court notes that, after he collected his sick wage, Conag
spent two months in his home province and engaged in various physical
activities.

41
Rollo, p. 150.
42
Id. at 30.

I
43
GR. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53.
44
Supra note 38.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 212382

Conag has no factual medical basis


for his claim of permanent disability
benefits

According to the CA, there is no dispute that Conag suffered from


spinal injuries designated as "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis and
Spondylosis; Right SJ Nerve Root Compression," with an incidental finding
of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v. Cholesterolosis, " on account of his job as a
bosun's mate, which is "associated with working with machinery, lifting
heavy loads and cargo." The CA also found that he sustained his injuries
during his employment with the petitioners. 45

The Court disagrees.

A review of the petitioners' evidence reveals that both the CA and the
LA glossed over vital facts which would have upheld the fitness to work
assessment issued by the company-desi~nated physicians. The petitioners
cited a certification by the ship master, 4 which Conag has not denied, that
the ship's logbook carried no entry whatsoever from March 28 to August 25,
2009 of any accident on board in which Conag could have been involved.
Instead, Conag's medical repatriation form shows that he was sent home
because of a "big pain on his left kidney, kidney stones." 47 In their final
report dated December 1, 2009, 48 Drs. Lim and Go of the MMC certified
that he was first "cleared urologic-wise" upon his repatriation. The NLRC
also noted that Conag mentioned no particular incident at work on deck
which could have caused his spinal pain.

To rule out any spinal injury, pertinent tests were nevertheless


conducted, resulting in a diagnosis of "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis
and Spondylosis; Right SJ Nerve Root Compression," with an incidental
finding of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v. Cholesterolosis." Attached to the
report of Drs. Lim and Go is a certificate, also dated December 1, 2009,
issued by Dr. William Chuasuan, Jr. (Dr. Chuasuan), Orthopedic and Adult
Joint Replacement Surgeon also at MMC, who attended to Conag, that he
had "Low Back Pain; Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-SJ, Right. "49 In
declaring Conag fit to return to work, Dr. Chuasuan noted that he was now
free from pain and he had regained full range of trunk movement. He noted
"Negative Straight Leg Raising Test. Full trunk range of motion, (-) pain.
F zt. to return to wane.1 ,,50

45
Rollo, p. 84.
46
Id. at 151.
47
Id. at 29.
48
Id. at 147.
49
Id. at 148.
50
The straight-leg-raise test (or (Lasegue :~ s(r;n) is the most sensitive test for lumbar disk herniation,
with a negative result strongly indicating against lumbar disk herniation.
<http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/100l/p835.htm> viewed March 29, 2016; id.

)
Decision IO G.R. No. 212382

Even considering the inherent merits of the medical certificate


issued by Dr. Jacinto on March 20, 2010, the NLRC did not hide its
suspicion that his certification was not the result of an honest, bona
fide treatment of Conag, but rather one issued out of a short one-time
visit. It noted that Dr. Jacinto issued a pro-forma medical certificate, 51 with
the blanks filled in his own hand. Dr. Jacinto certified that Conag's
condition "did not improve despite medicine," yet nowhere did he specify
what medications, therapy or treatments he had prescribed in arriving at his
unfit-to-work assessment, nor when and how many times he had treated
Conag, except to say, vaguely, "from March 2010 to present," "present"
being March 20, 2010, the date of his certificate. No laboratory and
diagnostic tests and procedures, if any, were presented which could have
enabled him to diagnose him as suffering from lumbar hernia or "Herniated
Nucleus Pulposus, L5-Sl, Right" as the cause of his permanent disability.
There is no proof of hospital confinement, laboratory or diagnostic results,
treatments and medical prescriptions shown which could have helped the
company-designated physicians in re-evaluating their assessment of Conag 's
fitness. When Dr. Jacinto said that "[Conag's] symptoms [were] aggravated
due to his work which entails carrying heavy loads," he obviously relied
merely on Conag's account about what allegedly happened to him aboard
ship nine months earlier. This Court is thus inclined to concur with the
NLRC that on the basis solely of Conag's story, Dr. Jacinto made his
assessment that he was "physically unfit to work as a seafarer."

In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, 52 this Court


rejected the medical certifications upon which the claimant-seaman
anchored his claim for disability benefits, for being unsupported by
diagnostic tests and procedures which would have effectively disputed the
results of the medical examination in a foreign clinic to which he was
referred by his employer. In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Dela
Cruz, et al. v. Velasquez, et al., 53 the Court brushed aside the evidentiary
value of a recommendation made by the doctor of the seafarer which was
"based on a single medical report which outlined the alleged findings and
medical history" of the claimant-seafarer. 54 In Montoya v. Transmed Manila
Corporation/Mr. Ellena, et al., 55 the Court dismissed the doctor's plain
statement of the supposed work-relation/work-aggravation of a seafarer's
ailment for being "not supported by any reason or proof submitted together
with the assessment or in the course of the arbitration. " 56

51
Rollo, pp. 200-201.
52
671 Phil. 56 (2011).
53
591 Phil. 839 (2008).
54
Id. at 852.
55
613 Phil. 696 (2009).

A
56
Id. at 711.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 212382

In Dumadag, 57 where the seafarer's doctor examined him only once,


and relied on the same medical history, diagnoses and analyses produced by
the company-designated specialists, it was held that there is no reason for the
Court to simply say that the seafarer's doctor's findings are more reliable
than the conclusions of the company-designated physicians.

No showing that "Mild Lumbar


Levo convex Scoliosis and
Spondylosis" is a serious spinal
injury that may result in permanent
disability

The Court finds it significant that both the LA and the CA concluded,
on the basis alone of a diagnosis of "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis [left
curvature of the spinal column in the lower back, Ll to LS] and Spondylosis;
Right SJ Nerve Root Compression," that Conag suffered serious spinal
injuries which caused his total disability. Nowhere is the nature of this
injury or condition described or explained, or that it could have been the
result of strain or an accident while Conag was aboard ship, not to mention
that it was only a "mild" case. Dr. Chuasuan noted in his December 1, 2009
report that Conag was now free from pain and had regained full range of
trunk movement: "Negative Straight Leg Raising Test. Full trunk range of
motion, (-) pain. Fit to return to work." For 95 days, Conag underwent
therapy and medication, and Dr. Chuasuan's final Lasegue 's sign test to see
if his low back pain had an underlying herniated disk (slipped disc) was
negative.

Apparently, then, Conag's back pain had been duly addressed. He


himself was able to attest that back home from December 2009 to
!

February 2010 he was able to engage in various normal physical routines.


Concerning the LA's observation ,of his alleged deteriorated physical and
medical condition, and therefore his unfitness to return to work, let it suffice
that the LA's own opinion as to the physical appearance of Conag is of no
relevance in this case, as it must be stated that he is not trained or authorized
to make a determination of unfitness to work from the mere appearance of
Conag at the arbitral proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Decision


dated January 27, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119282
is REVERSED, and the Decision dated November 30, 2010 of the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 09-000666-10 is
hereby REINSTATED.

57
Supra note 4 3.

l
Decision 12 G.R. No. 212382

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERQIJ. VELASCO, JR.


Assotiate Justice

....
-~
ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

FRANCI~ZA
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
( consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBITER(1 J. VELASCO, JR.


Ass£ciate Justice
Decision 13 GR. No. 212382

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the


Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO


Chief Justice

. _-:-, .L .- .31 TRUE COPY

... I'-· .
,... , ,,
. , .... '·· .·
. ' .
:':.f!!if-
". _, .
: I"' , ~f c o u rt
.. v
#\

-· ·, z;· ..] S 1: vis 1on

MAY Z 6 2016

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen